4 ms·

I really hate these kinds of benchmarks. No-one will ever have jQuery as a bottleneck on their application.

• migstopheles 13y ago
  First thing that pops to mind is jQuery animations vs CSS transitions/keyframe animations, especially on low-powered mobile devices. I guess that's not explicitly jQuery vs JS, but it's still an example of how it can be done far better. There's also the fact that you don't have to include a gigantic library of functions you'll never use, just to show a box when you click a button. 37kb is way over 10% of my ideal page load for a simple to moderate site.
  • bowerbird 13y ago
    > 37kb is way over 10% of my ideal page load i'd say 87% of the pages on the web have graphics whose importance is sketchy, and whose total size dwarfs 37k. and since i almost always do _something_ which has been found to show cross-browser inconsistencies, the peace that jquery gives _me_ is well worth those paltry 37k... that's me. other people might be different. but that's me. -bowerbird